Adult learning is more than alternative education, self-help, self-study, or training. Self-directed inquiry can free you from the cultural traps of today’s postmodern world. When you think for yourself, you take control of your life. Intellectual ability and critical thinking soon become substitutes for paper credentials. Simply stated aggressive learning is the most practical guide to a passionately rewarding life.

Friday, September 19, 2014

Futurist John Naisbitt once
equated high tech with high touch. These days high touch is eclipsed by high surveillance.
Not only has video technologymadeus much more aware of police brutality
and the use of excessive force, it also offers us the security of policing the
police and witnessing disputed situations on behalf of the police.

To put law enforcement in
perspective, we first have to have a better understandingof our human behavioral predispositions and the troublesome clash that
arises when duty puts peace officers at odds with their biological inclinations.
We also have to take into account the self-protective organizational hierarchies
law enforcement officers belong to that circle the wagons when there are
complaints about police behavior. I’ve experienced both firsthand.

When the name Rodney
King comes up, most people who were adults in 1991 have images of a man lying
on the ground being beaten by police officers. Then there was the confrontation
with Professor Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police
department, which garnered national attention in 2009, when the professor was
arrested as a result of having been reported as a suspicious person at his own
residence.

Fast forward to more
recent times, and it’s hard to forget the video of a California highway
patrolman sitting on top of a woman while he pummels her face with his fists. In
another situation, we watched a police officer walking in front of a row of
people seated calmly on the ground in handcuffs as he pepper sprays them like
someone applying garden fertilizer. And now we have the shooting of Michael
Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, and the rioting that followed.

What is happening when
we witness an officer beating on someone who is clearly no longer resisting is
that emotion has taken over and the incident is running on instincts being driven
by hormones. Thoughtfulness and control at this point have been overridden by
biological impulse, and when more than one police officer is involved, they
begin to take their cues from one another as the emotion takes on a life of its
own.

Biology makes clear
that we human beings are primates, and without sufficient self-awareness of this
fact or open acknowledgment of its reality, we can be depended upon to act instinctively
in ways very similar to our simian cousins.

All
primates are subconsciously hyperaware of hierarchy and dominance. We may not
dwell on these things consciously, but we sense intuitively who is and is not
dominant in all social situations. This is easily demonstrable by randomly examining
body language in group settings. And, as Erich Fromm observed many years ago, it’s
when we deny our animal nature that
it can manifest in its worst forms.

Between
our ears is a virtual bias-generating machine that works 24/7 to protect us
from harm and surprise. It pays careful attention to our sense of identity and the
dynamics of our in-group-out-group relationships. Our gray matter notices most everything,
and it makes big assumptions on scant observations, keeping meticulous records
beneath our awareness. Claiming that one is not biased is to deny one’s brain
its fundamental function. Bias is what we rely on to confirm the perceptions we
live by. The form of bias in need of remedy is an assumed prejudice that has
congealed into a stereotype and is socially harmful to others.

Our subconscious is
home to a vast repository of learned assumptions based on clichéd evidence.
When occasions arise that trigger them, we intuit the associated biased
emotions as representing straight-up reality. The result is known as confirmation
bias.

Asking people if they are racially prejudiced
is a senseless thing to do, since our conscious selves don’t have direct intellectual
access to the enormous emotional database in our subconscious. Not many people
will admit to being racist, but statistics prove without a shadow of a doubt that
racism is still very much alive in the present.

By
any objective standards, our demographics show that the American criminal
justice system’s egregiously disproportional harsh treatment of minorities is a
national disgrace. As such it makes a mockery of our country’s founding
principles about being born equal. If you have the slightest doubt about the
veracity of this statement, read Michelle Alexander’s stunning exposé The
New Jim Crow.

Overcoming racial bias
is an incredibly difficult thing to do because the emotional coding that establishes
racial bias takes place beneath our conscious awareness. For law enforcement
officers, overcoming racial bias is an extraordinary challenge that requires
constant mindfulness, continuous effort, introspection, counseling, and
resolute supervision.

It’s critical to
understand that when officers work in neighborhoods with large ethnic minority
populations, the fact that their interactions with the residents are often
negative will reinforce whatever prejudice they have already learned or will set
the stage for implanting prejudice in the future. Thus, the seeds for racial
profiling are sown in a rich mixture of emotional experience that in time will
set up like concrete.

This is not rocket
science, but it may as well be because we’re not benefitting as we should from
knowledge gained through unrelenting research in neuroscience, human
psychology, primatology, and anthropology. We like to consider ourselves to be far
above behaving with animalistic inclinations, and so we prefer to ignore any
reminders that we have them. But by
no stretch of the imagination are we exempt from primate behavior, and we pay a
heavy price for not facing the truth.

We are territorial and
tribalistic creatures. We take things like home, country, personal space, and
group identity very seriously. And to be able to adapt to all of the behavioral
situations we are likely to encounter, our inherentphysiological processes enable us to gear up and rise to the social occasions
we find before us.

When our primate
cousins encounter social hierarchy, their hormones adjust accordingly. So do
ours. For example, when a low-ranking male ape suddenly finds himself in an
alpha male role, his levels of testosterone will shoot up accordingly. Put a
uniform, a badge, and a gun on a man or a woman, and precisely the same thing
happens. I know this is true from personal experience and extensive observation.

When police officers and
citizens come together, a brain chemical reaction occurs in all present. Those who view the officer as someone
to trust are likely to experience increased levels of oxytocin—sometimes called
the moral molecule. Those who see the officer as a threat will experience an
increase in adrenaline and a spike of testosterone.

As primates we are
wired for the potential of conflict escalation, and because of repeated
exposure to extreme social situations, police officers are apt to suffer the
consequences of their wiring working all too well. In my view, it is not an
exaggeration to say that law enforcement officers are chemically conditioned to
turn on their internal aggression switch and get an instant response. But the very
fact that our hormones can induce behavior ranging from subservience to alpha-dominance,
according to circumstance, suggests we can also be flexible and therefore trainable.

Police officers’ duties
require them to be assertive, and they become accustomed to surging levels of adrenaline
and higher than normal levels of testosterone. When incidents occur that call
on them to rise to the occasion, thus causing elevated hormone levels, the
result can be an automatic stance of privilege. This sense of entitlement can
easily become corrosive—an alpha male or female feeling that dominance is
always one’s prerogative by nature of one’s identity. It’s a kind of situational
arrogance that comes after multiple incidents in which one is required to be
the dominant individual simply in order to do one’s job as expected.

Put another way, a
primate posture works better if one’s authority is so obvious that it will be clear
to others from the outset that insubordination will not be tolerated. And thus,
the act of appearing dominant is chemically self-reinforcing.

Fortunately
there is another side to the brain chemical rewards associated with police
work, namely, the ability to derive pleasure from empathy and altruism. The
opportunities to experience both are ever-present in law enforcement. In point
of fact, these rewards reinforce the stated goal of most law enforcement
agencies, which is to protect and serve. This is the reason that some people
are drawn to become peace officers and why they can’t imagine ever doing
anything else.

Self-assurance and
self-confidence is a best-case example of the use of authority in the
performance of a policeman’s duties, but for some officers, their positional power
begins to manifest as hair-trigger resentment when their orders are not
followed immediately or when the actions of others are experienced as acts of
disrespect. Especially when an officer’s unconscious bias machine has already imperceptibly
identified the person encountered as someone assumed to be of a lower class, someone
unworthy of respect, or someone whose insults would seem socially intolerable,
an explosive injection of hormones is stimulated simply to regain one’s sense
of official superiority.

Before I go any further,
let me clarify that it is not my intent here to disparage, discredit, or defame
police officers, nor am I defending or excusing abusive behavior on their part because
of their biological predisposition. What I hope to show instead is that in many
of the situations where police officers find themselves, their instincts are egregiously
at odds with what they are expected to do. Without extensive training, disciplined
self-awareness, and relentless oversight, they will likely become overly
aggressive simply because they are acting in sync with their primate biology.

At the same time,
because of the sensitive nature of their duties, we have to hold officers of
the law accountable, even when—or especially when—they cross the line from being
of service to citizens to abusing citizens, subverting the very reason for their
existence. In my view, police officers who manage to control themselves in dire
situations and perform their duties as expected are exemplary human beings and
should be appreciated as such.

Police work is
sometimes described as hours and hours of boredom interrupted by moments of
stark terror. Having experienced this feeling many times, I would describe it
differently: it’s an endorphin rush that one not only gets used to but very
likely learns to crave, seeking the feeling at every opportunity. Four decades
have passed since I served as a police officer, and yet I still miss the
excitement that occurs at a slot-machine frequency.

In large metropolitan
areas emergency calls can be considered a routine part of police work. It seems
fair to ask that law enforcement officers and their management be on alert for
the possibility that the desire for a rush of adrenaline on the part of people
conditioned to seek excitement can bring about an unconscious effort among
officers to up the ante of events for the benefit of what amounts to an
addictive experience.

In every occupation, we
find people who do not belong and whose behavior damages the reputation of
their organization. Unfortunately, although the qualification requirements for
peace officers are very high, we are not yet experts at weeding out people who
don’t have the temperament for police work.

All hierarchal
organizations have a tendency to close ranks with self-protective measures when
threated. Law enforcement organizations, by nature of their dangerous and
difficult role in society, are bound emotionally in loyalty to one another, and
it would be unnatural, even disappointing, if they weren’t.

The dark side of loyalty
in law enforcement, however, is where the most dangerous and malfunctioning
inclinations of our animalistic behavior come into play. It begins when
officers become accustomed to using excessive force with management’s approval
or indifference. In Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko writes, “Cops who rat out
other cops tend not to remain cops for very long. Lying and exaggerating in
police reports and on the witness stand isn’t just common, it’s routine and
expected. It’s a part of the job.” Under these conditions, the cure can be
worse than the disease.

This is when technology
can come into play. We know without question that people behave differently
when they’re aware someone is watching. Even a happy face on the wall in a
break room is likely to increase donations in a voluntary coffee fund.

In some ways, the
growing paranoia in America about living in a surveillance society can be
justified. But when it comes to law enforcement, justice can’t be blind and still
be just if we human beings have a biological predisposition that threatens our impartiality
when we are under stress. To achieve objectivity in law enforcement, oversight
is a necessity. We have the technology to protect both police officers and
citizens, and the expense of doing so pales in comparison to the social anguish
that can be avoided.

In every case where
police officers have begun to wear cameras, complaints of abuse have dropped
dramatically. This happens because officers are not as apt to lose control of
their emotions when their actions are being recorded. Likewise, the people they
encounter or place under arrest are less inclined to resist, act out, or become
belligerent when they are aware that proof of their actions will be documented.

I know from my own
experience that there are times when police officers have to act angry even when
they’re not, simply to quell a disturbance. Repeated frequently enough,
however, this kind of experience can easily lead to increased adrenaline and testosterone
conditioning for instantaneous aggression, just as working out with weights
increases muscle strength.

Think of it this way. When
actors and actresses perform under the vigilant eye of a movie camera, they learn
to bring forth on cue and express the full range of human emotions while being
in complete control every step of the way. Surely, with extensive training, we
can expect peace officers to play their parts in society and act as we need
them to act without losing complete control of their emotions.

Cameras are not a
panacea. Their use requires strict standards and allowances for civil rights
and privacy issues. Moreover, tolerance for glitches and blackouts occurring
during critical incidents is both unacceptable and intolerable. An electronic
eye on one’s shoulder is a constant reminder that justice is the expected objective
in every public encounter. Having been a police officer myself, I would have no
qualms, whatsoever, about wearing a camera. I would consider it proof of my
intentions, and I would feel it was for my protection as well as a public
benefit.

Regardless of race,
creed, or color, every citizen in this country is due the respect afforded
every other citizen. Police organizations have a duty and a moral obligation to
protect and serve, and the best way for management to meet that obligation is
to serve the public interest as intended with recognition of our basic human
tendencies and acceptance of visual and audio scrutiny of actions by police as
a way to better protect both the officers and the public.

While this is not
rocket science, we should pretend that it’s equally important. Until we do so, we
aren’t likely to achieve a truly just society.